Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Open Source Operating Systems Linux

LTSI Linux Kernel 3.4 Released 61

Posted by Soulskill
from the penguins-with-boosterspice dept.
hypnosec writes "The Linux Foundation has announced the release of Linux 3.4 under its Long Term Support Initiative (LTSI), which will be maintained for the next two years with back-ported features from newer Linux kernels. Based on Linux 3.4.25, the LTSI 3.4 is equipped with features such as Contiguous Memory Allocator – which is helpful for embedded devices with limited hardware resource availability; AF_BUS – a kernel-based implementation of the D-Bus protocol; and CoDel (controlled delay) – a transmission algorithm meant for optimization of TCP/IP network buffer control."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LTSI Linux Kernel 3.4 Released

Comments Filter:
  • should be at least 5 years.
    Do you know what a pain in the ass it is keeping all your relatives pc's backed up and updated? And the phonecalls about the updates not working anymore. And trying to explain that the repositories don't work anymore and they need to reinstall a new version of ubuntu and you can't really help them over the phone because you don't use ubuntu very often and oh yah this is about the kernel not ubuntu.
    Try telling my dad ununtu isn't linux.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Do you know what a pain in the ass it is keeping all your relatives pc's backed up and updated?

      Charge them money. And your post has nothing to do with the LTSI kernel.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Try telling my dad ununtu isn't linux.

      Ubuntu is a linux distribution, which is more than just linux.

    • by Osgeld (1900440)

      funny, I still have Ubuntu 9 on my old beater laptop and the repos work fine, hell I have Debian potato on a Pentium that still reads the repos 13 years later

      why is it your family is using Ubuntu, cant figure out basic operation, and then call you, when you don't use Ubuntu?

      Thats like calling the Ford dealer for your volkswagon

      • I'm surprised. I thought 8.04 LTS, 10.04 LTS, 12.04 LTS & 12.10 were the only currently supported releases.
    • by jsuhre (594020)
      In ubuntu assuming you don't have many (any?) 3rd party repos upgrades are relatively smooth. Step 1) Edit /etc/update-manager and set Prompt=normal then a Step 2) sudo do-release-upgrade I updated my home file server this past weekend from 11.10 -> 12.10 without issue.
  • Good, I suppose (Score:3, Interesting)

    by jones_supa (887896) on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @04:02AM (#42666817)
    If we want the Year of Linux on Desktop to come, we will need more these kind of strict, conservative standards. One of the top reasons why developers don't want to target the platform is that things are changing way too wildly.
    • Why? If you want conservative, just use Debian stable. However, most people don't, and that's because they don't _want_ conservative, they _actually_ want lots of updates all the time. Open source caters for all types. Use what you like, and if you change your mind, use what you like after.
    • Really? What kind of wild changes have there been in recent linux kernels? In particular, what kind of API breakages have there been?

  • by Anonymous Coward

    If QNX and NetBSD can hack it, why the heck can't Linux?

    • Linux never breaks the ABI, which means keeping 32-bit time on 32-bit systems (or 32-bit for 32-bit applications on a 64-bit kernel).

      • Can Torvalds not add another API to get the 64 bit time for 32 bit systems (or has he already done that and the original poster was wrong)?
      • I think you may be confusing the userland ABI offered by glibc with the kernel API which is more relevant to the article.

        The stable kernel API is where the real work savings is at. Now that the embedded market is gaining momentum, the big players formed the LTSI to stabilize the kernel API long enough to be of use. I'm on the LTSI bandwagon since the time I save from not having to use LXR to modify driver code WHICH DOESN'T BELONG TO MY ORGANIZATION the more time I have to spend working on my own code.

        Exc

    • by Tarlus (1000874)

      It's Long-Term Support, but not that long...

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @06:00AM (#42667275)

    which may or may not materialize in the mainline.

    Backporting uncontested features, those which will go into mainline is fine, but I don't get this.

    Caveat emptor.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Hadn't heard about AF_BUS before...
      I found the rationale [lwn.net], and a summary of the argument against. [lwn.net]

      I get that doing multicast in userspace isn't optimal, but I'm a bit mystified what people are doing with D-Bus that would require any kind of performance. Wasn't D-Bus supposed to be a simple pub-sub system for notification of events and the like?

  • Are there any distributions that are known to plan on using this? Debian would be a natural fit, I suppose.
    • by Tarlus (1000874)

      Worst-case, if they don't offer it in their repos then compiling vanilla is pretty easy in Debian.

  • by aaaaaaargh! (1150173) on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @09:33AM (#42668351)

    Reading about this Contiguous Memory Allocator feature, and since I'm currently developing a (toy) programming language in my spare time, I was wondering why Linux doesn't include a garbage collector as system-wide service. It's not easy to implement GCs and particularly concurrent ones, so wouldn't it make sense to offer garbage collection as an OS service?

    • Re:Stupid question (Score:4, Informative)

      by DeSigna (522207) on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @10:08AM (#42668681)

      The view that the kernel has of memory allocations is somewhat different to what the application sees - most of the work is done in the libc, which directs the kernel to map regions and size the heaps that it malloc()'s from.

      Usually, you'd have GC handled by other libraries, for instance the Boehm-Weiser GC. If you're using C++, Boost also has a few wrappers and implementations of garbage collection algorithms for a variety of use cases.

      From memory I believe the kernel CMA is mostly related to in-kernel allocations, so drivers and kernel threads.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      Reading about this Contiguous Memory Allocator feature, and since I'm currently developing a (toy) programming language in my spare time, I was wondering why Linux doesn't include a garbage collector as system-wide service. It's not easy to implement GCs and particularly concurrent ones, so wouldn't it make sense to offer garbage collection as an OS service?

      In a strict sense, no. The OS kernel views the userspace as a collection of resource users - each process has memory (for code, data, stack, and heap),

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Because the kernel does memory management on a page level and (more importantly) protects different user space processes from each other. Finer grained memory allocation can be done in user land. The idea is to do in kernel only that which is necessary and why should the kernel impose one of the many GC methods over the other?

      For example in most modern C++ or D applications (there are exceptions) there is no need for garbage collection, because you can implement *predictable* resource management using RAII

  • Not very long term (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Myopic (18616) * on Wednesday January 23, 2013 @01:27PM (#42671039)

    Why is two years considered Long Term? In my short career I've worked with many machines which have run the same version of an OS for a lot longer than that. I would think ten years would be a *minimum* threshold for "long term support". Ten years from now, yes, some machines will need that critical security update. No, we can't expend six months every two years to re-test the systems to make sure they work with the new kernel.

    There's a sliding scale of how reasonable it is to keep backporting bug fixes but two years? Two years doesn't seem long enough. Even my laptop has a three-year-old version of OS X on it.

    • Ubuntu's current practice is a 5 year term for LTS. Microsoft's 10 years leads to supporting pretty ancient stuff (in Internet time, anyway). They were forced to extend XP support all the way to 13 years since Vista and Windows 7 can't run reasonably on a lot of the hardware that XP was happy on.

      For the previous decade, I personally think 5-8 years somewhere is a good LTS term for operating systems and kernels.

      Now that CPU's aren't really getting faster, just more cores and energy efficiency, perhaps 10-20

Aren't you glad you're not getting all the government you pay for now?

Working...